|
Main Paineframe posted:According to the link you posted, it's not "because of autism fears" so much as it it "because people stopped vaccinating due to autism fears". Your link, at least, suggests that staggered scheduling is something Sears offered up as a compromise position to skittish parents that otherwise might not vaccinate at all, and is designed (using real medical knowledge about the vaccines and the diseases they combat) in order to increase risks of infection and sickness as little as possible. If he was pushing it on everyone who walks through his door it'd be a bad thing since it does present some risks over the traditional vaccination schedule, but your article suggests he came up with it exclusively to appease vaccine skeptics and convince them to vaccinate their children, which makes it a good thing. And the risks are pretty slight anyway as long as herd immunity (which staggered scheduling doesn't really damage) holds up. Bob Sears is actually a pretty major kook, and this article in Pediatrics is a really good introduction to his insanity: http://www.immunize.org/concerns/offit_moser2009.pdf Ignoring all that, staggered scheduling comes with risks in increased unvaccinated time and missed shots -- following his schedule puts you in the doctors office twice as much and giving your kid three times as many shots. So it definitely has more risks. Obviously vaccinations are clearly preferable to no vaccines, so if the option is "stagger or none" you want to stagger. But it's disingenuous to argue that he started from that position. Discendo Vox posted:He's talking out of both sides of his mouth to maximize his client base. v  v Maybe. But it makes it clear that their policy is to follow the standards.Now if he makes it super duper easy for parents to opt out, I can't say. I will say that every single pediatrician I talked to when my kids were young said "we follow the CDC schedule, but if you want to use a different schedule we will work with you"... probably because they'd rather have your kid getting vaccines than not.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 06:57 |
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'd buy that if he hadn't published a book promoting it. Or possibly to get as many people vaccinated as they can. Is it better to humor someone's unsubstantiated fears AND get them vaccinated or have them just go unvaccinated altogether?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
RationalWiki has a fairly good write up on Dr. Sear's methods: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Attachment_therapy#Dr._Sears.27_principles
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:RationalWiki has a fairly good write up on Dr. Sear's methods: quote:In matters of discipline, attachment parenting advises the use of empathy, respect, preventative training against bad behavior, and the creation of a "'yes' environment." ahahahahahahahahahahahaha! I'm sure my almost 2 year old would LOVE a "yes" environment. Such an environment would include such super fun activities as: 1. being allowed to lick all windows...because the cat does, so why not her? 2. and speaking of cats, the cat's dish is also for babies. forget that the last time she tried to eat the cat's food, she puked everywhere...kitty eats it, so why not me? 3. markers are not for paper...they are for arms...and faces...and walls, and furniture...and everything except paper. 4. Tables are for climbing. 5. Bedtime is really only a suggestion. 6. Toilets are really really fun places to play. 7. Whatever the hell other things she wants to do because "wheeee! Yes environment" This whole "we don't tell our child no" thing is, well...not for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:ahahahahahahahahahahahaha! There is some positives to getting rid of the idea of 'Crying it out' parenting and encouraging positivism, but yea, Dr. Sears is a quack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:RationalWiki has a fairly good write up on Dr. Sear's methods: These ideas are just more fodder for the idiot parents who think diapers are a bad training method and try to watch their child's fidgets for signs of needing to excrete and the morons who dress their child in gender neutral clothes and think they're sophisticated by not telling people the child's gender.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:There is some positives to getting rid of the idea of 'Crying it out' parenting and encouraging positivism, but yea, Dr. Sears is a quack. That depends entirely on how you define "cry it out." A number of studies have shown that there is no long term harm to a child whose parents utilized sleep training methods. The claims that "Cry it out" leads to lower IQ, anxiety, or other behavioral disorders are unscientific, rely on faulty data, and cause unnecessary guilt and stress in parents who may be struggling with sleep deprivation. Even our pediatrician recommended it as a possible approach, as long as we were comfortable with it. It's not for everyone, but the claims it is harmful are inaccurate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They are pretending its no big deal. They argue that Measles and other diseases are 'Natural' and that you can gain a 'Natural Immunity' by being exposed to it. They literally have never seen the horrors of a pandemic, and make appeals to nature. Look it is simple, when you are infected you must go into the heart of the forest and lay on the ground along the sacred leylines of Mother Gaia and she will infuse you with natural immunities. Even the most noobish White Witch/Druid knows this stuff come on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:At the end of the day, I think it's up to parents to figure out what works best for their family yo saw this on the last page and just wanted to say this is a really good post and if every parent and every person giving a parent advice would internalize it the world would be a better place. Except vaccines, that is proven to work best for everyone so vaccinate your loving children 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This would be a really good idea. I'm wondering if there might be a Carnival Cruise-style suit against the parents of the kids impending. I totally forgot Carnival Cruise was a thing, and looked up lawsuits. Is, uh, this what you were referring to because holy gently caress  http://news.injuryattorneyfla.com/2014/04/disney-cruise-line-crew-member-arrested-charges-molestation.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:That depends entirely on how you define "cry it out." http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201407/parents-misled-cry-it-out-sleep-training-reports No, I don't think its dangerous, but honestly I don't buy into the 'crying it out' method, and three years on, our child sleeps pretty well on his own despite not allowing him to cry it out at night. Anecdotal, I know, but still. The PROBLEM with the 'Cry-It-Out' crowd is the ones who decided to start this method right off the bat with a newborn infant, despite the fact that many doctors emphasize that even at night, a newborn needs to be fed and comforted for at least the first 6 months. Parents want to return to a 'normal' schedule too quickly, and assume that the crying is simply to be ignored. Infants cry for a reason, selfish or not. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
The millions of baby training methods either published by doctors, quacks, or others confuse the hell out of me because memories don't start forming until 2-3 years old. For some reason having a kid fucks with people's minds so much they latch on to the first thing that they think makes sense for raising and rationalize it any way they can, usually very aggressively whenever someone asks them to prove it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Babies are loving stupid and it's likely nothing you do to a pre-3 year old it's going to remember anyway. http://www.onion.demon.co.uk/theonion/other/babies/stupidbabies.htm
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Babies are loving stupid and it's likely nothing you do to a pre-3 year old it's going to remember anyway. This is one of the funniest things I've ever read quote:According to Institute president Molly Bentley, in an effort to determine infant survival instincts when attacked, the babies were prodded in an aggressive manner with a broken broom handle. Over 90 percent of them, when poked, failed to make even rudimentary attempts to defend themselves. The remaining 10 percent responded by vacating their bowels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201407/parents-misled-cry-it-out-sleep-training-reports This "article" is the exact kind of unscientific scare campaign I was talking about. In the author's own words: Dr. Navarez posted:When I (Narvaez) write about human nature, I use the 99% of human genus history as a baseline. That is the context of small-band hunter-gatherers. These are “immediate-return” societies with few possessions who migrate and forage. They have no hierarchy or coercion and value generosity and sharing. They exhibit both high autonomy and high commitment to the group. They have high social wellbeing. See comparison between dominant Western culture and this evolved heritage in my article (you can download from my website) In someone else's words: http://www.skepticpeds.com/2012_09_01_archive.html What you just did is a classic trope of the anti "Cry it out" crowd...No one, not even "cry it out" patriarch Dr. Ferber, suggests leaving a newborn to cry it out, as newborns need food more often than 5 hours. No one advocating for sleep training recommends starting the practice until the child is able to go a prolonged period without food, usually starting at around 6 months. pentyne posted:The millions of baby training methods either published by doctors, quacks, or others confuse the hell out of me because memories don't start forming until 2-3 years old. For some reason having a kid fucks with people's minds so much they latch on to the first thing that they think makes sense for raising and rationalize it any way they can, usually very aggressively whenever someone asks them to prove it. Pretty much. I wouldn't feel compelled to defend cry it out so much (as I really think it comes down to personal choice and what works for your family, and I don't really care how someone else gets their kid to sleep) but for the fact that I have been repeatedly likened to some kind of neglectful monster because I've suggested to other struggling parents on various forums that if they are truly desperate for regular sleep, the child is old enough, and they are comfortable doing it, that cry it out is a valid option. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Babies are loving stupid and it's likely nothing you do to a pre-3 year old it's going to remember anyway. 'Remember', no, not vividly. But infants do develop reactions based on infant experiences. Good experiences as a baby have been shown to shape reactions later in life. ActusRhesus posted:What you just did is a classic trope of the anti "Cry it out" crowd...No one, not even "cry it out" patriarch Dr. Ferber, suggests leaving a newborn to cry it out, as newborns need food more often than 5 hours. No one advocating for sleep training recommends starting the practice until the child is able to go a prolonged period without food, usually starting at around 6 months. Except think about the crowd you are explaining this to. I KNOW it doesn't kill brain cells, nor is that what I implied. Remember: We're in the Anti-Vax thread, half these people ignore scientific studies and medical advice the vast majority of the time anyways. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Armani posted:I totally forgot Carnival Cruise was a thing, and looked up lawsuits. Nah, I was referring to a contract law class standard, Carnival Cruise v. Shute. Basically, if Disney's attorneys were really on top of things, the parents may have violated part of the contract they signed to get into the amusement park. Like the licensing agreements that people click through to get their software installed, buying a park ticket is effectively your signature on a lengthy contract with the mouse. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Except think about the crowd you are explaining this to. I KNOW it doesn't kill brain cells, nor is that what I implied. Remember: We're in the Anti-Vax thread, half these people ignore scientific studies and medical advice the vast majority of the time anyways. OK, then I'm a little confused. Why did you link to that article? Your comment seemed to endorse its content.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:OK, then I'm a little confused. Why did you link to that article? Your comment seemed to endorse its content. She is a Developmental Psychologist she studies Child Development and Psychological affects. We're hitting two different fields: You are countering with with a Pediatrician, who is perfectly correct in saying it does not kill brain cells. She studies moral and mental development, while the health of your baby is certainly the expertise of your Pediatrician, child psychological development is more of a psychology field than a pediatrician field. Dr. Navarez is not considered a quack so far as I know... 
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Nah, I was referring to a contract law class standard, Carnival Cruise v. Shute. Basically, if Disney were on top of things, the parents may have violated part of the contract they signed to get into the amusement park. Like the licensing agreements that people click through to get their software installed, buying a park ticket is effectively your signature on a lengthy contract with the mouse. I have this hilarious picture of some idiot parents bringing their measles ridden child to the park, one of the costumed characters spots it, and suddenly a horde of jack booted Mickey Mouses run up, detain the family and set up a bio-hazard tent around them while security patrols around warning away other patrons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:She is a Developmental Psychologist she studies Child Development and Psychological affects. We're hitting two different fields: You are countering with with a Pediatrician, who is perfectly correct in saying it does not kill brain cells. She studies moral development, while the health of your baby is certainly the expertise of your Pediatrician, child psychological development is more of a psychology field than a pediatrician field. but even that has been refuted. Again, these articles are scare tactics that push parents away from valid parenting options in an incredibly hostile and judgmental way. And Navarez has been criticized pretty thoroughly, both on this and her breastfeeding positions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:but even that has been refuted. Again, these articles are scare tactics that push parents away from valid parenting options in an incredibly hostile and judgmental way. Can I get some links to refutations? She's considered a leading researcher on this front....kinda scary if its all bunk. I find a lot of MD's criticizing her, but do we have any Psychologists doing so?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Nah, I was referring to a contract law class standard, Carnival Cruise v. Shute. Basically, if Disney's attorneys were really on top of things, the parents may have violated part of the contract they signed to get into the amusement park. Like the licensing agreements that people click through to get their software installed, buying a park ticket is effectively your signature on a lengthy contract with the mouse. This actually sounds kind of concrete. Holy poo poo, how could you even begin to track who brought in the measles though? pentyne posted:I have this hilarious picture of some idiot parents bringing their measles ridden child to the park, one of the costumed characters spots it, and suddenly a horde of jack booted Mickey Mouses run up, detain the family and set up a bio-hazard tent around them while security patrols around warning away other patrons. The tents are character themed, and the bio-hazard symbol would have it's own Mickey ears around it. There's a choice of bio-hazard tent for girls from The Princess Collections, and their choice of Princess to sing to them through a bubble. Rapunzel, with her healing hair, is a popular choice. Boys can go through the newly acquired Marvel-Lucas-Disney series of quarantine gear, complete with choice of CloneTrooper or Iron Man plague mask! Kids who survive get a Lightsaber! (With handling payments by parents)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Can I get some links to refutations? She's considered a leading researcher on this front....kinda scary if its all bunk. I find a lot of MD's criticizing her, but do we have any Psychologists doing so? I think MD criticism is valid given some of her claims. Especially regarding formula feeding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I think MD criticism is valid given some of her claims. Especially regarding formula feeding. Okay, I can buy that, and my child was formula fed, but how does that refute her studies on child development? It'd be a logical fallacy to throw ALL her research under the bus because of a single view or a couple minor views. I don't go to me GP for psychological help, I go to a therapist or a physiologist. While I can wholly depend upon the word of my GP and MD for my physical health, we can't throw the psychological under the bus because they are not all encompassing. Might it expose a bias? Sure, but how do we know that bias suddenly invalidates her data totally? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Okay, I can buy that, and my child was formula fed, but how does that refute her studies on child development? It'd be a logical fallacy to throw ALL her research under the bus because of a single view or a couple minor views. I'm not throwing all of her research out. I'm questioning conclusions she's drawn in two areas: formula feeding and sleep training.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
pentyne posted:Are the anti-vaxxers blaming immigrants or are they trying to pretend like measles is no big deal? I live in Huntington Beach (where the high school is that kicked out the non-vaccinated kids) and interact with these genius parents, and I can confirm that the standard stance is that the measles are no big deal. One even cited the disease's appearance in a Brady Bunch episode as evidence of this. Main Paineframe posted:Measles is no big deal...unless you are an infant or toddler, in which case it's deadly. So of course even the anti-vaxxers who catch the disease only really regard it as a slight annoyance and don't really understand what all the fuss is about, because they don't really understand the full implications of the spread of the disease. They see that they and everyone they know who got infected are only really just being inconvenienced by measles, and just assume Big Pharma is kicking up needless hysteria to push vaccines. It never occurs to them to consider that the disease might be more dangerous to vulnerable populations. Exactly. It's the same as the flu shot: they don't hand that out to keep you from feeling icky and throwing up for a couple of days. They hand it out so that there is less of a chance that your 85 year old grandfather or one year old nephew will catch it from you. Rawk Hawk fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Rawk Hawk posted:I live in Huntington Beach (where the high school is that kicked out the non-vaccinated kids) and interact with these genius parents, and I can confirm that the standard stance is that the measles are no big deal. One even cited the disease's appearance in a Brady Bunch episode as evidence of this. funny you should mention that. Featuring our very favorite Dr. Bob Sears: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/appeal-to-brady-bunch-vaccine-fallacy/
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I'm not throwing all of her research out. I'm questioning conclusions she's drawn in two areas: formula feeding and sleep training. So highlight where she said sleep training actually damages brain cells, which is what the Pediatrician was correctly refuting? She simply said that CIO might have affects on brain development, not 'damage brain cells' which he is refuting. She is arguing that there is mental positives to your child's cognitive development by not practicing CIO as far as future brain psychological development due to positive reinforcement being the ones for infants to most likely carry on into cognitive development. I mean, I could be wrong and missing it, but I saw nothing in that article about 'brain cell damage' or 'Killing brain cells'. We're talking about psychological cognitive development, not physical damage. As far as the formula feeding: Yes, I agree, she is a little overdrawn on her credentials there, and I'd trust my pediatrician over my psychologist on my child's physical health any day. ActusRhesus posted:funny you should mention that. Featuring our very favorite Dr. Bob Sears:  Or Dr. Sears....
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:funny you should mention that. Featuring our very favorite Dr. Bob Sears: I'm not surprised that these parents are just once again regurgitating something nonsensical and fallacious as hell that they read somewhere else as "proof."
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So highlight where she said sleep training actually damages brain cells, which is what the Pediatrician was correctly refuting? She simply said that CIO might have affects on brain development, not 'damage brain cells' which he is refuting. She actually did kind of say that. And even if she didn't and her claims are limited to behavioral issues unrelated to brain development (is that possible? I don't know, I'm not a neurologist) even that has been refuted. There is simply nothing to suggest any long term behavioral harm in using sleep training methods at an appropriate age. (Most say 6 months) http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/Infant-Sleep-Training-is-Effective-and-Safe-Study-Finds.aspx Moreover, there have been studies that show that mothers of children who do not receive adequate (and we're not even talking 8 hours here) rest are more prone to mental health/depression issues, and depression in parents seems to have a link to psychological issues with the children. Sleep training or not sleep training is a personal choice. My problem with people like Dr. N is that she uses selective data and scare tactics to drive parents away from a parenting technique that may be a lifesaver for them (and I do not exaggerate when I say lifesaver, given the links between exhaustion and post partum depression and shaken baby syndrome. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-karp/postpartum-depression-how_b_427692.html) it's the same kind of unfounded scare tactic bullying used by the anti-formula brigade, and to make things relevant to this thread again, the anti-vaxxer crowd.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:She actually did kind of say that. And even if she didn't and her claims are limited to behavioral issues unrelated to brain development (is that possible? I don't know, I'm not a neurologist) even that has been refuted. There is simply nothing to suggest any long term behavioral harm in using sleep training methods at an appropriate age. (Most say 6 months) I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I want to see other child development psychologists reign in on this instead of a bunch of pediatricians before I really call it 'refuted'I'd also point out that you should probably check out the 5 or 6 articles in response to that study at the bottom, even if you ignore the ones involving Dr. N CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
you can agree to disagree over whether you would use sleep training on your kid or not, but disagreeing with the statement that there is no credible evidence to suggest sleep training leads to behavioral issues is like disagreeing with the statement that vaccines don't cause autism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:you can agree to disagree over whether you would use sleep training on your kid or not, but disagreeing with the statement that there is no credible evidence to suggest sleep training leads to behavioral issues is like disagreeing with the statement that vaccines don't cause autism. The study got called out because it reviewed mainly the physical health of the child and parent, and ignored what Dr. N's original study was about : Mental development. Its not a very good refutation, and is kind of the issue, the study focused on the PEDIATRIC points of interest (Physical health and wellness) and ignores what Dr. N is trying to imply towards mental and character development. quote:Overall it seems that the authors tried to make their data fit a pressing research question. Unfortunately, what has resulted is a study that has no bearing on the question of interest, and thus more research remains needed. Despite what the authors would like us to believe, we are no closer to knowing the long-term effects of sleep training than we were prior to the publication of this article. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I want to see other child development psychologists reign in on this instead of a bunch of pediatricians before I really call it 'refuted' The Australian study that was published in Pediatrics was co-authored by a number of PhDs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And even if she didn't and her claims are limited to behavioral issues unrelated to brain development (is that possible? I don't know, I'm not a neurologist)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:but even that has been refuted. Again, these articles are scare tactics that push parents away from valid parenting options in an incredibly hostile and judgmental way. If you look at it a lot of it is the same tactics that cults use to brainwash their members. Nobody cares about your child as much as we do. Trust us, everybody else just wants to sabotage our superior thoughts and MURDER YOUR BABY! Don't trust THEM! You know we're right because we care unlike thooooooooose people. Anybody that disagrees with us is a deluded fool that must be set right, ignored, or destroyed. They want to harm your baby! Don't trust them! Like really, what do they know? They don't care enough to find the best solution. We do! Trust us!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The Australian study that was published in Pediatrics was co-authored by a number of PhDs. We can refute studies based on a single study? Once again: I'll agree to disagree, further research is required, but I don't think that paper is going to count as a total refutation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:She actually did kind of say that. And even if she didn't and her claims are limited to behavioral issues unrelated to brain development (is that possible? I don't know, I'm not a neurologist) even that has been refuted. There is simply nothing to suggest any long term behavioral harm in using sleep training methods at an appropriate age. (Most say 6 months) I feel like people that are rabidly anti-CIO think we're leaving our kid to scream incessantly for hours on end, months at a time. I have a friend whose twins had to be rocked to sleep until they were almost 2 because she never let them learn to get themselves to sleep for fear of them thinking she'd abandoned them or something. There's actually a SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE LOL that doesn't lead to overly-codependent toddlers or screeching newborns, and it's called "let them cry for 5-10 minutes, go tuck them back in and put a music box on or something, leave the room, repeat until sleep happens". And it only takes a couple of weeks (at 4-6 months old), and leads to kids that know how to self-comfort! Gasp, shock. I really think people put way too much thought into this and exaggerate/intentionally misrepresent the other side to make their methods look like the only "humane" one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'd also point out that you should probably check out the 5 or 6 articles in response to that study at the bottom, even if you ignore the ones involving Dr. N OK. Angela Braden is a journalist. http://sciencemommy.weebly.com/ Penny Leach's theories have been called into question quote:Leach has been criticised for her view that young children require one-on-one attention, ideally provided by mothers or family members and which cannot be provided in day-care.[1] Criticism has chiefly been directed towards Leach's purported idolising of mothers and difficulty giving fathers equal importance,[2] and the lack of scientific evidence to support Leach's opposition to child care where the ratio of adults to infants is too low for individualised care.[3] and Tracy G. Cassels is an "Evolutionary Psychologist" which is a fancy way of saying batshit crazy. quote:… The goal is to help parents be better parents for their babies by focusing on parenting as it has evolved for millions of years (not the drastic changes we have made to parenting in the last couple hundred years), for which human infants are adapted. Here's her website. Ask yourself why I am disinclined to take her seriously. http://evolutionaryparenting.com/
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 20:44
|
|